How inconsistent can it be, if it only has lost to teams that are superior to it, in all aspects : on paper, in ranks, in market value, in past history, everything ? The only inconsistency of our team, is that somehow we've managed to get some great results in very good matches against some of them, despite odds being against us.
I agree. The way I look at it is, if you had to "tip" which teams would be quarter-finalists independently from the groups and their potential competitors in the round of 16 from the lists, and whichever group has the most of them, then that would be a group of death. I tend to think Group D as Uruguay, England and Italy are strong teams that could easily all be quarter finalist. Group G, I tend to see Portugal & Germany with that potential, USA to me is more likely a Round of 16 team IMO Likewise with Group B - Spain & Netherlands as quarter finalists, but Chile probably a round of 16. Eitherway, I find these three groups are the most interesting ones so it makes for a very interesting group stage!
Did you watch CONMEBOL qualifying AT ALL? Look, Chile are in fantastic form, they've been really good of late, but they started off 4-0-6 in their first 10 qualifiers. They finished off strong, sure, but couple their weak start in WCQ with their QF exit at the Copa America after struggling to win the easiest group (Sure there was the Uruguay draw, but otherwise Chile were terrible as they had to come from behind against a crappy Mexican B side and needed a stoppage time own goal to beat Peru). So yeah, Chile's on a tear right now. 5-1-0 in their last 6 competitive matches, but that's a small sample size. Momentum often (but not always) means little going into a WC. But if you want to completely discount the 14 other competitive fixtures since the last WC that they've had before their current 6-match run just to argue that they aren't inconsistent, then I would have to question your credibility, even if you are a Chile fan. Those previous 14 have been quite bad. I'm going to assume that you'll cite friendlies though, since they're just as meaningful as competitive fixtures and all
What makes group "B" so much tougher though is that you have to win it to avoid Brazil in the second round. So the European champs are in serious danger of an early exit. Spain and the Netherlands would love to trade places with England or Italy, and Chile would love to trade places with Uruguay. I think that says it all with regards to identifying the Group of Death. PS... Surely Uruguay, not Chile, is the most inconsistent NT in CONMEBOL.
Uruguay is certainly inconsistent as well. With the logic I used to call Chile inconsistent it'd be hypocritical not to say the same of Uruguay. That being said, Uruguay has proven they can perform on the big stage. 4th place at the WC, Copa America winners, and Confed Cup semi-finalists (albeit expected). Plus there's the matter of that strike partnership.
So you're including the 2011-2012 games, when our NT had a fat asshole as a "coach". When the Federation fired him and got Sampaoli (december 2012), the results changed drastically: only 1 official defeat during the last year (Perú), and only 2 defeats in friendlies (Brazil and Germany). All the results during Borghi's years are totally meaningless now. The whole situation, fortunately, changed.
I get what you are saying, but Chile started over after Borghi left and Sampaoli assumed. Since Sampaoli, Chile has only lost versus Peru in Lima (his first game), versus Brazil, and versus Germany in Germany. Thats 12 games in total, a bigger sample size. In fact, with Sampaoli, Chile has been pretty consistent. Although imo it doesnt change the fact that the Dutch are favorites over Chile.
And do you actually read and learn about all of the things you write, or do you simply go into wikipedia and see the final stats represented there, and take everything in there written just as it is ?. During last 3 years, Chile has passed through 2 completely diferent process's, after Bielsa left us in February 2011. With our former coach (Borghi), Chile went downhill from where Bielsa left us, and only enmended it's route, once we replaced him with our current coach (Sampaoli), at the begining of 2013, as an emergency measure in order to try to achieve qualification. The Chile that plays today, which is the one which actually is playing next WC, is the one under Sampaoli, not the one under Borghi. Or tell me one thing, do you still believe that the actual Brazil under Scolari, is the same Brazil which was formally, under Meneses ?. Or the Argentina under Sabella, the same as the Argentina under Batista ? Btw, since according to your avatar, you are from England, wasn`t Capello your head coach ? What was Hodgson doing in his chair, when we beat you guys, in Wembley ? Well, if you maybe would have read a little more than what appears in wikipedia, I would'nt have needed to explain to you, the diference. Under Sampaoli, besides the lost game against Peru (his first match) and a draw at Colombia and lots of wins in our qualifier campaign , in friendlies we've only lost to Brazil and Germany, and before it, we had draws with Spain, and with Brazil at their home. And besides, under Sampaoli, we've won every other friendly game we've had (no, not a big sample, I give you that, but it is what it is).
For me. Spain>>>Italy Holland>>>England Chile>>>Uruguay I think Italy is the only elite team in group D, Uruguay seems to have a lot of people fooled because of their luck filled path to the 2010 semis, also their victory in the water-downed 2011 copa, and England, well England is England, can't expect much. Chile had some terrible luck in 2010 having to face Brazil in the rd of 16, and again this year with this horrific group, but considering they would be the 2nd strongest team in group d, and they are the 3rd strongest in group b,(debatable now with Strootman out of Holland) makes it pretty obvious to me that group b is the group of death. Now add to that the second place team is stuck with Brazil, how much more obvious could this possibly be.
You guys always mention friendlies like they don't count.. And then when Brazil wasn't beating England, Italy, Germany and France in friendlies all of the sudden they were counting and people were saying Brazil can only beat up small teams.. Every game counts, no player is going out and not trying, they are trying out for a slot on their National Team, they want to participate on the World Cup. You can't put your opinion as the player's opinions just so you can feel better about the result you wanted. You probably turned on the game, watched the game, cheered for your team to win. Then with the result on hand you start to create your opinion on the game, if it counted or not... while.. until the game was over you were hovering over the phone, internet, tv trying to see it or cheering over it. So all of you at Bigsoccer.. stop it with the game don't count BS. Unless you actually can get a player to sit down with you, and go on record that this game meant nothing to me and I rather be at home, the game counts. Sad loser excuse that's what it is.
Settle down, and don't show so much weakness by resorting to personal attacks instead of starting off strong with a factual argument. I think this is a huge problem among fans of both the international and club games. You bring up some good points (I'm not gonna resort to such lows as "OMG you found that on wikipedia, didn't you?" Because that would be quite low, wouldn't you agree?) however I think people put far too much emphasis on managers. Clearly Chile are better tactically under Sampaoli, I won't deny that. The key players however are also the same. Players are under-criticized in my opinion, and if they are capable of playing poorly under one manager, they are capable of playing poorly again, no matter who manages them. Like I said though, they're in great form, so they might have a great tournament. But then again, we all saw what they did before the manager switch with the same core of players. That = Inconsistency. I'm not from England, though I support them internationally because my country doesn't have a real international team, and I have English ancestry. I don't think it matters who the manager is to be honest, the core of players will always remain the same, and the team is fairly consistent. Haven't officially lost a competitive match since Germany in the last World Cup. 1. So you beat England...in a meaningless friendly. Is that you're way of saying Chile is better than England? I personally don't care all that much, but if your standard for a team being better than another because of friendly results, then I guess Norway is better than Brazil? More weakness in an otherwise strong post I don't understand the fascination people have with friendlies, and giving them the same weight as actual meaningful fixtures. Friendlies allow unlimited substitutions and most of the time involve experimentation with new tactics. I'm not saying that winning them is meaningless, but you can't strike down actual competitive results like you have, later to hold friendly results as a meaningful part of your argument. Anyways, no need to pollute this thread with anymore off-topic arguing. This is supposed to be about the question of "the group of death". So I'll let you have the last word in public, I'll read your next post, and if I have anything else worth arguing afterwards I'll do so over PM.
On this 'meaningless friendlies' thing: I have never read a media report on any of those reading 'Previously ignored friendly against group of hastily assembled players from some obscure foreign land ends in a ride home for our team's players after they had a refreshing shower and a bit of a motivational singsong. Before the game, our National coach had to resort to a make-shift tactic of navigating the capital's busy city center streets, when it's driver took a wrong turn while travelling to the stadium. The game itself was full of exiting combinations of new kits and shoe/shoelaces colour variations. ' They must mean something.
Diferent managers means diferent tactics, diferent styles or diferent choices, as each individual is diferent and of course thinks diferent as well. If all managers did exactly the same things, there would be no reason of why to pick one manager over another one, but when it gets to competitiveness, the individuality of each person decides those who may be succesful in regards to those who aren't. If you think a little more about it, clubs and NT's, have always spent millions over diferent coaches. And most of the times, the most expensive ones, usually are the most succesful ones, as well No they aren't. Each manager has its own set of players, which in some cases may be the same, but according to the style and tactics that the manager wishes to impose on them, will undoubtly have them perform good or bad, according to the players cappability to adapt themselves to whatever the manager wants to do with them. In some cases, players can't adapt, or maybe they can adapt, but aren't as succesful as they are in their clubs, so they finally get discarded for the NT. In Chile's case, Borghi used as a basis to the chilean NT, the Colo-Colo of 2003-2006, years when this team won lots of tournaments in Chile under his tutelage, but each of those players evolved since then and many of them, actually play in diferent positions than those where they played back then (the most bizarre example, is the one of Arturo Vidal, whom started playing as Center back or Libero, while now he plays as offensive midfielder), but as he asumed the NT, Borghi changed the tactics that the team had under Bielsa, and tried to impose his own ideas over the team, switching the positions for many of those key players back to the positions they had before they ever evolved from (he insisted in placing Vidal right by the goalkeeper), which had a horrible result, as our team played at nothing logical and were easy prey for almost anyone, and as he (Borghi) was very stubborn, he didn't accept that what he was doing was bad for our NT and he insisted in calling the same players who weren't playing well (under him or even at their own clubs), and he insisted in his thoughts till the last minute of him being in charge of the team. Besides he had lots of problems with many players over diferent issues through the whole process (which had some of our key players getting banned from the NT), which unfortunately affected the mood of the whole team and there was no clear leadership within the team, which had almost every player doing whatever they wanted to do, inside and even outside of the pitch. His replacement as head coach was decisive. Yeah. Meaningless, specially for Hodgson and England's players and local fans, who really love to see their team get "owned" by others. And more special, if it is at home in their mythical "Wembley stadium" (maybe, as last time we played in the old Wembley, where we also beat them by 2-0; so now in order to continue feeling that sensation, they allowed us to beat them again, now in the "new" Wembley by exactly the same score. They sure must love how that feels.......). Specially considering that the last time that England defeated Chile, happened in the 1953, and since then, the most they've got against Chile, (most of the times playing at their home), have been draws. Head to head, today, Chile is superior to England.
On this 'meaningless friendlies' thing: I have never read a media report on any of those reading 'Previously ignored friendly against group of hastily assembled players from some obscure foreign land ends in a ride home for our team's players after they had a refreshing shower and a bit of a motivational singsong. Before the game, our National coach had to resort to a make-shift tactic of navigating the capital's busy city center streets, when it's driver took a wrong turn while travelling to the stadium. The game itself was full of exiting combinations of new kits and shoe/shoelaces colour variations. ' They must mean something.
One can come up with quite a few factors to defend selecting a group as a GoD. One that the Group G proponents use often is average FIFA ranking -- which I think is laughable -- Brazil 9th -- give me a break. IMO the single most telling factor is ARE ELITE teams -- meaning teams that traditionally field powerful WC squads, concerned about their prospects of advancing out of their group. Is Germany truly concerned? -- I seriously doubt it. To me that rules out Group G as a GoD. I do thing Spain and Holland are "concerned" and probably Italy is as well. Two groups of death, B and D, period.
Additionally, traditionally, we talk about 'The" GoD. By definition there is only one. So on second thought, though I am Chilean, my vote goes to group D.
Group G is probably the most evenly matched with any team clearly able to get out. Germany is almost guaranteed a spot which leaves the other 3 that are extremely well matched.
Couldn't agree more. I am a Portugal supporter, but I would rather be in group G then say, replace chile in group B or let's say England in group D.
Why do people still think that portugal have done anything but overachieve at the WC and Euros? That tiny nation has been producing one of the best teams right behind the top title contenders for many years now. Sure they had underachieved for many decades before the Figo generation, but since then they've been one of the top teams despite their miniscule size, and strange and not to strong league.
I think it has to do with last 5 years where they have struggled so much in qualifying. There's a feeling this team has failed to mesh together, but you're right that I was wrong to connect it their history as a whole where they have had some really good runs.